The best development in the field of punditry in the past, oh, three or fours years at least is the application by Charles P. Pierce of his considerable powers to political analysis.

He is much less susceptible to the institutional careerism which is the Original Sin responsible for centrist bullshit, and he could give a fuck about civility or the social mores which act as regulating mechanisms if a centrist should slip here or there.  A bright spot in a bleak landscape.

He fucking gets it:

But what I’ve come to realize is that, from the first moment the first protester stepped onto the lawn of the capitol in Madison 16 months ago until the polls close tonight, the Great Wisconsin Recall has been an extended argument against narcotic centrism and anesthetic civility […] What we have here is a fight, out in the open, without nuance or euphemism, between two ideas of what self-government should look like, who it should serve, and how, and how wide the parameters of participation will be. That is serious business. It ought to be contested fiercely and to the last and without cosmetic conciliation. Scott Walker made a firm stand against public-employee unions, and did so in a way that ran contrary to a proud tradition of progressive politics in a state that takes those politics very, very seriously

As opposed to, say, this fucker: 

God I fucking hate David Brooks

God I fucking hate David Brooks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brooks wants to claim that Walker’s bold leadership, though abrasive, is laudable because it does things that need to be done: take on “entrenched interests” in public spending programs to lower the debt.

Let’s count the ways this is fucking bullshit, because in thirty years if Walker is any guide our kids won’t be able to enjoy this luxury:

1) THE SINGLE BIGGEST WALKER AGENDA ITEM WAS STRIPPING UNIONS OF BARGAINING RIGHTS.  This adds PRECISELY DICK to government coffers and DOES NOT DECREASE THE DEFICIT. AT ALL.  This may have been pertinent to mention in a column that contains this sentence: “A vote to keep Walker won’t be an antiunion vote.” FUCKING ASSHOLE.

2) Walker didn’t do anything unusual in bringing a large structural deficit under control.  I know this because when I was in 5th grade social studies my teacher told me that people have faced similar problems in the past to what we have today.  So I knew that looking at the previous governor’s situation and record could have some bearing on this issue.

And low and behold!  The previous Wisconsin governor dealt with an even larger structural deficit than Walker is dealing with.  Almost twice as big.  Hmm. Why isn’t Brooks praising that previous governor to the heavens?  And saying that he augured in a brave way to deal with deficits?

Oh of course because he raised some taxes as well as cutting costs to do so.  You can’t do that, stupid!  At least in a way that doesn’t fellate the rich and business interests.  Because taxes on lower income and senior Wisconsin citizens are up.  See here for the sordid details.  (The previous governor relied on some federal money, but still faced down by himself a deficit more than $5oo million more than what Walker is dealing with.)

4) $400 million in lost revenue due to an emergency session tax cut for the rich and businesses. In one year. $400 million in lost revenue due to an emergency session tax cut for the rich and businesses.  In one year. $400 million in lost revenue due to an emergency session tax cut for the rich and businesses. In one year. $400 million in lost revenue due to an emergency session tax cut for the rich and businesses. In one year. $400 million in lost revenue due to an emergency session tax cut for the rich and businesses. In one year.

5) Let’s go back to that issue of taking federal funds.  Brooks doesn’t like it when states take federal money to get themselves out of a deficit.  That’s not exactly evil, and not exactly stupid, so a step up from the stuff he’s been slinging.  OK.

Problem is that right now, the federal government faces negative real interest rates.  It’d be cheaper to borrow money now, help states with their deficits, and pay the money back later.  We’re losing money by not doing this.  YOU PIG-IGNORANT MOTHERFUCKER.  If Brooks knew this when he wrote his column, he’s saying that he’s willing for the state to pay money in order for the populace to learn to live with lower social services.

Imma repeat that.  David Brooks either knows less about the basics of our macroeconomic situation than a smart high school AP Econ student, or he wants the state to pay money in order to get its citizens to get used to fewer and lower-quality social services.

David Brooks is a fucking cunt.  That is not misogynistic, it is a technical sociological term.  Brooks knows about that because he is as knowledgeable about sociology as he is about politics.

And Charlie Pierce not only is not a fucking cunt, but an astute observer of politics and a damn fine writer.  But one writes a blog for Esquire and one will queef out columns for the NYT until he dies.  Theosophy became extraordinarily more difficult when this state of affairs came into being.

H/t to Balloon Juice for the Pierce column and Doghouse Riley for the Brooks shiite

Advertisements